The system used to determine rain-affected matches will be revised this summer to better reflect the Twenty20 format. Had the changes been in place for England's defeat on Monday, they would have meant West Indies had to chase a higher target than 80 from nine overs, though only very slightly so.

"We will be reviewing the application of the Duckworth/Lewis method to Twenty20 during the summer when this competition is over," said Frank Duckworth, one half of the Dickensian-sounding statistical duo who created the system. "Certainly people have suggested that we need to look very carefully and see whether in fact the numbers in our formula are totally appropriate for the Twenty20 game."

Duckworth and his partner Tony Lewis are contracted by the International Cricket Council, the sport's governing body, to update the system at periodic intervals. "We thought it was appropriate to wait until the end of this competition when we've got a lot more Twenty20 data on our database," said Duckworth, "if there are any changes these should be ready for the commencement of the southern hemisphere season on 1 October. My suspicion is there might be a slight difference but not very much, for instance that West Indian target of 80 might go to 81 or 82."

England lost because they were outplayed by West Indies, but the result has raised questions about the appropriateness of the D/L method. The ICC has confirmed that it would continue to use D/L unless a better alternative was invented. "We're happy with it and obviously all the countries that are playing in the tournament are happy with it as well because they are using it domestically," said a spokesman.

"It is generally accepted that D/L is the fairest method. If any of our member boards does have an alternative suggestion to Duckworth/Lewis our cricket committee will look at it, but it would be up to them to trial it in domestic cricket and bring it forward."

The spokesman also confirmed that the "programme is updated regularly to incorporate changes in the game. Scores now in international cricket are higher than they were in recent years and the system has been updated to include that." According to Duckworth, though, the numbers used to determine the target score have not been updated for three years.

Certainly then the system is lagging behind at the moment. The current D/L calculations fail to take into account the changes, such as faster scoring, which have taken place since 2006. Only six international Twenty20 matches had been played at that point, but since then there have been another 108.

There is a passive acceptance that D/L is the best method for determining truncated matches, born of the natural wariness of the average person for any activity involving complex calculations. The preference is to take the experts at their word and accept that D/L works best. But Duckworth and Lewis do have their rivals. The Indian Cricket League for example, the unofficial 20-over competition, used the Indian VJD method. Interestingly, that would have set West Indies a target of 94 from nine overs, as opposed to the 80 suggested by D/L.

Incensed by the comparison, Duckworth scorned the inventor of VJD. "He uses what we call a Delphic method. He tries to give people what they feel is a fair answer and he keeps fiddling his figures to do it."

"The ICC commissioned a review of all the methods about four years ago," said Duckworth, "and independent analysis showed that D/L was more rigorous and more capable of accommodating changes in the game than any other. So we're we confident we can hold up against all challengers."

England were not robbed, they were, as Paul Collingwood admitted with admirable frankness afterwards, "beaten by a better team". But Twenty20 has flipped and skewed so many of cricket's traditions. Maybe D/L is another entrenched aspect of the game that needs to be looked at again.